Jharkhand HC denies bail to alleged Maoist, says long custody alone not enough in UAPA cases involving national security

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 315 | 2026:JHHC:12347-DB

April 27, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant bail to an alleged Maoist operative, holding that long incarceration alone cannot justify release in cases involving serious offences against national security and public order.

In a judgment delivered on April 27, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Baban Bhokta, also known by multiple aliases, challenging the rejection of his bail plea by a Chatra sessions court. The appeal was filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

The case stems from Pratappur Police Station Case No. 152 of 2023, where the appellant faces charges under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). According to the prosecution, explosive materials including cane bombs and detonators were recovered based on the accused’s disclosure.

Counsel for the appellant argued that he had been in custody since November 25, 2023, and that bail should be granted due to prolonged incarceration. It was also submitted that he had already secured bail in eight other pending cases. However, the State opposed the plea, emphasizing his criminal antecedents and warning that releasing him at this stage could prejudice the ongoing trial, especially since most witnesses had already been examined.

The High Court noted that the appellant’s earlier bail plea had already been rejected on merits in March 2025. While considering the fresh plea, the bench observed that the gravity of the allegations, including alleged links to a banned extremist organisation and involvement in multiple similar cases, outweighed the argument of prolonged custody.

Relying on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, including the ruling in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court highlighted that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against broader concerns of national security and societal interest. It stressed that in cases involving serious offences under UAPA, courts must exercise caution and cannot treat long incarceration as the sole ground for bail.

The bench further observed that the appellant had been described in the case diary as a zonal commander of the banned CPI (Maoist) and had multiple cases of a similar nature pending against him. It clarified that the grant of bail in other cases does not erase criminal antecedents or diminish the seriousness of allegations in the present case.

With only three prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined, the court found merit in the State’s argument that granting bail at this stage could disrupt the trial. Consequently, it upheld the lower court’s order and dismissed the appeal. The court also directed the State to ensure timely production of remaining witnesses so that the trial can be concluded expeditiously.

Case Reference : Cr. A (DB) No. 1236 of 2025, Baban Bhokta @ Baban Ganjhu @ Baban Ji @ Baban Singh Bhokta vs State of Jharkhand; for the Appellant: Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate; for the State: Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.